Cultural (In)Sensitivity: The Dangers of a Simplistic Approach to Culture in the Courtroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates how courtrooms and legal processes recognize, react to and thereby create 'cultural' information. Drawing on contemporary Canadian examples and the US experience with 'cultural defences' to criminal charges, the author considers not so much how courts should react to cultural practices but rather the problems with the way we identify these practices in the first place. This 'identification' process is often a form of cultural racism and is sometimes masked as an effort at cultural sensitivity. Not only is cultural information incompletely collected and imperfectly understood, it also tends to be considered only against the unarticulated, unexamined norm of North American mainstream culture. Legal institutions produce distorted views of 'Other' cultures as well as an intriguing shadow picture of mainstream culture-both of which reveal a deeply held belief in the mainstream tradition's superiority. This process can be particularly harmful for women from non-mainstream cultures. Not only does it construct their own cultural traditions as being dangerously misogynist, it also refuses to recognize those elements of mainstream culture that subordinate and endanger women. The conclusion considers the range and complexity of the challenges that judges, litigators, litigants, and communities face in trying to avoid a simplistic approach to culture, stressing the need for more careful approaches to cultural sensitivity training in judicial education and litigation strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".